Another stolen plane used in terror attack, two charged in Marshfield WI

FN FAL

Freight Dawgs Rule
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Posts
8,573
Total Time
7,000+
From a legal defense standpoint, writing the appology was a dumb move. You might as well load a revolver with 6 shots, spin the cylinder and go first in a game of Russian Roulette.

Sat, Oct 15, 2005
Charges filed against teenage low-flying pilot, passenger

By Matt Ollwerther
Marshfield News-Herald
Police filed charges Friday against two 16-year-old Marshfield males who buzzed a packed Beell Stadium in a small airplane during Marshfield High School's homecoming football game.

Because the 16-year-old pilot is a juvenile, police didn't identify him. They requested charges of entry into a locked room, recklessly endangering safety, operating a vehicle without owner's consent and obstructing an officer.

However, in a letter to the editor, Raymond E. Kennedy Jr. took responsibility for the prank and apologized for his actions.

"It was never my intention to scare or terrorize any of the fans or players at any time. The fly-over was a prank intended to enlighten the crowd's spirit and to have a fun Homecoming," he wrote. "I have now seen several different perspectives of my stunt, all of which were never my intentions."
He did not return a phone message left at his home Friday.

Another 16-year-old Marshfield male, a passenger in the plane, was charged with operating without the owner's consent as a passenger.

Kennedy's aircraft flew low over the stadium during the Sept. 30 game between Marshfield and Rhinelander near Marshfield Middle School, according to police records. The department received three 911 calls about the low-flying aircraft.

Airport manager Harold "Duffy" Gaier said Kennedy had his student pilot certificate and soloed about three months ago.

The teenager was an employee at the Marshfield Municipal Airport and had the access and keys to the airplanes, he said. He is no longer employed there.

Student pilots can't have passengers unless they are receiving instruction, Gaier said. They must be properly trained for night flights and have a log book endorsement to authorize them to fly after dark.

Kennedy's flying status is pending investigations by organizations such as the FAA, Gaier said. It also will depend on how the young pilot reacts to the FAA.

Police Chief Joe Stroik said his understanding was the pilot had never flown or landed at night and took the aircraft down to altitudes as low as 150 feet.

Over any congested area such as a city, aircraft must fly 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft, according to Federal Aviation Administration regulations.

"Given the minimal experience this pilot had, I am convinced this community dodged a catastrophic event," said Stroik, adding witnesses have voiced the same message.

Many people could have died with a mechanical problem or pilot error, he said.

After flying over the stadium, the plane loitered in the area before returning to the Marshfield airport, Stroik said. Officers at the stadium detained Kennedy as part of the investigation and later released him.

The Transportation Security Administration and the FAA are continuing their investigations.
 
Last edited:

RichardRambone

Banned
Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Posts
675
Total Time
1500
Dear God will the horrific humanity of stolen airplanes ever stop? Think of the children!
 

westwind

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2004
Posts
135
Total Time
45
From a legal defense standpoint, writing the appology was a dumb move.
What is wrong with a kid taking responsibility for his transgressions? Frankly, I am sick and tired of the "It's not my fault" mentality. He is STILL just a juvenile. Unless he committed murder, they can only punish him so much.
 

FN FAL

Freight Dawgs Rule
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Posts
8,573
Total Time
7,000+
westwind said:
What is wrong with a kid taking responsibility for his transgressions? Frankly, I am sick and tired of the "It's not my fault" mentality. He is STILL just a juvenile. Unless he committed murder, they can only punish him so much.
There's a big difference between saying "it's not my fault" and remaining mute going into a trial. Saying it's "not my fault" is covered under one amendment to the constitution, keeping your yap shut is covered under another.
 

DrewBlows

Go Tigers!
Joined
Jun 25, 2003
Posts
2,031
Total Time
4500
westwind said:
What is wrong with a kid taking responsibility for his transgressions? Frankly, I am sick and tired of the "It's not my fault" mentality. He is STILL just a juvenile. Unless he committed murder, they can only punish him so much.
I think you missed the point. I agree with you, it is refreshing to see someone take responsibility for their actions, however if there was any doubt at to who the perpetrator of this grizzly fly-by was, there isn't anymore. Makes the DA's job real easy and takes away any incentive to plea-bargain. That said, the fact that the kid is only 16 years old (which means he's clinically stupid), and appears remorseful may play to his favor with the DA/Judge. I doubt that the FAA will be very forgiving though.
 

FN FAL

Freight Dawgs Rule
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Posts
8,573
Total Time
7,000+
DrewBlows said:
I think you missed the point. I agree with you, it is refreshing to see someone take responsibility for their actions, however if there was any doubt at to who the perpetrator of this grizzly fly-by was, there isn't anymore.
Not only that, but westwind thinks that a year sentence in prison, is not going to be an experience for this kid. After all, it's not murder. Read carefully...the seriousness of the act and "culpability" are major distinctions that will make this trial easy to bring into adult court in Wisconsin....the appology just made the situation of getting bunged by an adult inmate, closer to reality for this kid.

CERTIFYING A JUVENILE
AS AN ADULT
Charging a Juvenile as an adult.

The Wisconsin and Minnesota criminal codes pertain to juveniles as well as adults. However, when a juvenile is charged with a crime, a different set of court procedures will apply, namely the Wisconsin or Minnesota Rules of Juvenile Procedure (Juvenile Court). In part, these Rules mirror those that guide adult court, but they differ in language, pretrial procedure, and disposition of cases. For example, when a juvenile is charged with a crime, the State may attempt to have the minor "adjudicated delinquent" of the crime, versus seeking a finding of guilt. The State may also attempt to keep a child on probation for a greater amount of time, and may even attempt to try the minor as an adult. Although the laws in Wisconsin and Minnesota vary slightly, many of the same rules apply.

In order to try a child as an adult, the court has a separate trial to determine if it is proper. This is called a Certification hearing. Parents are often scared and confused when they learn that their child may face adult penalties for their actions. The following is information regarding the processes and definitions which bind the parties in certifying a minor.

The State must notify the juvenile, his/her attorney and the court of its intention to move the case to adult court. This is done through a formal motion at the minor’s first court appearance. Upon receipt of this request, either party and the court may order a "certification study". A study may ask that the minor meet with professionals in the fields of social work and psychiatry to make recommendations to the court with regard to the child’s emotional health, maturity, support network, education, and any other information relevant to assist the court in determining what course of action would be appropriate for the minor.

A minor has a right to a certification hearing to determine whether he/she ought to be tried as an adult. This is separate from the criminal trial, which would commence after the court makes its determination as to venue.

For purposes of a certification trial, the minor is presumed to have committed the crime he/she is charged with. Of course, this presumption does not exist in the criminal proceeding. The certification trial is closed from the general public, and only those with a direct interest in the case will be allowed into the courtroom, including the victims. The minor has the right to an attorney at every stage of the process, including the certification hearing. He/she also has the right to present evidence and witnesses, cross-examine the State’s witnesses, and present arguments.

Depending on the child’s age, the law has created a presumption of whether the child will be tried as an adult or as a juvenile. It is presumed that a child will be tried as an adult if the following conditions are met:

The child was 16 or 17 years old at the time of the offense;

The delinquency petition (the charging document) alleges that the child committed an offense that would result in a presumptive commitment to prison under the Minnesota sentencing guidelines and statutes, or a felony in which the child allegedly used a firearm; and

Probable cause has been determined that the juvenile committed the crime.

The juvenile may overcome this presumption if he/she can show by clear and convincing evidence that maintaining the proceeding in juvenile court would serve public safety. However, if the minor has been previously tried in adult court, a court will order certification on any new offense committed by the minor.

If the three criteria above are not satisfied, then it is presumed that the minor will be tried in juvenile court. In order to overcome this presumption, a prosecutor must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that retaining the proceeding in juvenile court does not serve public safety.

The juvenile statutes have defined the term "public safety". The court must consider the following six factors in determining whether public safety would be served:

1. The seriousness of the alleged offense in terms of community protection, including whether a firearm was used and the impact on any victim.

2. The culpability of the child in committing the alleged offense, including the level of the child’s participation in planning and carrying out the offense.

3. The child’s prior criminal record.

4. The child’s programming history, including the child’s past willingness to participate in available programming.

5. The adequacy of the punishment or programming available in the juvenile justice system, either in the exercise by the court of its delinquency jurisdiction or in its jurisdiction over extended jurisdiction juvenile cases.

6. The dispositional options available for the child in the court’s exercise of delinquency jurisdiction or in its jurisdiction over extended jurisdiction juvenile cases.​

The court must give more weight to the seriousness of the offense and the child’s prior criminal record that to the other factors.
 

westwind

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2004
Posts
135
Total Time
45
but westwind thinks that a year sentence in prison, is not going to be an experience for this kid.
Hey, now I don't have to think for myself! Thanks. My brain is takin' the day off:rolleyes: .
 

FN FAL

Freight Dawgs Rule
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Posts
8,573
Total Time
7,000+
westwind said:
Hey, now I don't have to think for myself! Thanks. My brain is takin' the day off:rolleyes: .
Don't take the day off, we're just getting started :D

Not singling you out, but I challenge anyone that waves the "do the right thing" flag to "do the right thing" and come on down to the polygraph...you'll have one chance to write you're appology letter before we strap you in and begin the beguine of the inquisition.
 

KigAir

Viva France!
Joined
Apr 7, 2002
Posts
575
Total Time
-3.14
I feel sorry for the CFI who signed off his solo endorsement.
 

jafo20

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Posts
235
Total Time
some
I wonder if it affected the outcome of the football game?
 

NYCPilot

Incorporated.
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
645
Total Time
.00001
I hope this isnt the beginning of a pattern of copycat flights of stolen aircraft. GA kepts losing, year after year.
 
Last edited:
Top